The Tavern

Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in game

Why does a mace have to say 140%? Why can't we just say 1.4 turns, or 14 aut? Additionally, add a line which states what your current attack speed with the weapon would be, rounded up if necessary. Here's the stat description of a whip:

Code:: Accuracy rating: +2 Damage rating: 6 Base attack delay: 110% This weapon falls into the 'Maces & Flails' category. It is a one handed weapon. It can be maximally enchanted to +9, +9.

A player with 4.5 maces & flails would instead see this:

Code:: Accuracy rating: +2 Damage rating: 6 Base attack delay: 11 aut This weapon falls into the 'Maces & Flails' category. It is a one handed weapon. It can be maximally enchanted to +9, +9. With your current skill, you can attack with this weapon in 9 aut.

If you prefer to use turns, that's fine, but I don't think aut is too confusing, inventory does list weights in aum. It could be spelled out people think that's better. A message for minimum delay could also be added, so that a player with 12 maces and flails or higher would see:

Code:: Accuracy rating: +2 Damage rating: 6 Base attack delay: 11 aut This weapon falls into the 'Maces & Flails' category. It is a one handed weapon. It can be maximally enchanted to +9, +9. You are fully proficient with this weapon and can attack with it every 5 aut.

Feel free to modify the strings of course, they're just examples. I don't think it's necessary to try to explain fractional attack speeds which round based on chance, just round up to the higher (slower) speed.

Seconded. This is way more readable.

tasonir wrote:I don't think it's necessary to try to explain fractional attack speeds which round based on chance, just round up to the higher (slower) speed.

Or use an actual fraction rounded to one or two places, "With your current weapon skill you can attack every 9.4 aut" doesn't seem incomprehensible to me.

what is an aut

seriously i have no idea is it like an ucle or maybe an elephat

140% of a turn is entirely reasonable and makes infinity times more sense than anything in this thread

10 auts = 1 turn, and the original poster did say:

tasonir wrote:If you prefer to use turns, that's fine, but I don't think aut is too confusing,

An aut is an "Arbitrary Unit of Time" (Just like an AUM is an "Arbitrary Unit of Mass")

If you prefer to use turns, that's fine

it already uses turns

problem solved

My real complaint is that it lists the attack speed as "140%" with no reference to what it's 140% *of*

Before the turn counter being displayed was standard that made more sense since you had nothing to compare it to (you had to go out of your way to see a "turn"), but now, whether it's "140% of a turn", "1.4 turns" or "14 aut" it'd be clearer than "140% as long as normal"

i think it's pretty fucking obvious what normal speed is in a turn-based game

1 turn = 1 thing you do most of the time, such as moving one space or swinging one sword. Some things you do, like eating stuff or preaching the good word of Zin, takes more than one turn.

1 aut (or arbitrary unit of time) = 1 discrete and specific amount of in-game time. Most species take 10 auts to move one space, some take more or less. All species take 10 auts to make one unarmed attack at 0 UC skill, but most weapon attacks will take more or less than that based on the amount of skill you have and the base delay of the weapon.

Saying 10 aut = 1 turn is occasionally true enough, but it ignores all the complexity and can lead to some major errors. It's like saying pi = 3. I think auts need to be more clearly stated, since decimals and percentages just mask the underlying math with weird, "easy" answers.

Yeah but it's not like it's impossible to just have a little line that says "At your current skill it will take 0.7 turns to swing". Like, that's what everyone wants to know but you either have to do 10 seconds of grade 8 algebra or wield a weapon that might be cursed or have +Contam to figure this out.

Using aut is dumb though, using turns is smart.

e: And yes it is easy to figure out from readily available information but when I think about fun and enjoyable parts of crawl I don't usually rank "Being forced to solve tedious middle-school equations" very high up there.

tl;dr lets display melee and spell damage output, too

MoogleDan wrote:1 turn = 1 thing you do most of the time, such as moving one space or swinging one sword.

Unfortunately in crawl both of these things often take an amount of time which is not one turn, it makes the definition of a turn pretty twisty.

The best you can say is "for most creatures 1 turn is the length of time it takes to move one space"

You could also say "1 turn is the length of time it takes for the turn counter to advance by 1" however that's too much of a tautology for my tastes

MoogleDan wrote:Saying 10 aut = 1 turn is occasionally true enough, but it ignores all the complexity and can lead to some major errors.

It's true in the same sense that "60 seconds = 1 minute" I don't quite see which complexity is ignored in that, or what error could be introduced, unless you're using the definition of "1 turn is the amount of time it takes you to complete a typical action" definition (Which isn't what's used in the code or the interface)

Myself I use:
1 turn to mean "one turn as it appears on the turn counter"
1 *action* to mean "one thing that I used a command to complete" which sometimes takes one turn, sometimes more, sometimes less.
1 aut to mean "one tenth of a turn, or .1 as it appears on the turn counter"

Now perhaps it's just a matter of semantics, where some people use the word 'turn' to mean what I mean when I say 'action' in which case perhaps there just needs to be a clearer set of definitions for such things.

Siegurt wrote:Now perhaps it's just a matter of semantics, where some people use the word 'turn' to mean what I mean when I say 'action' in which case perhaps there just needs to be a clearer set of definitions for such things.

Bingo.

MoogleDan wrote:mask the underlying math with weird, "easy" answers.

You must be new here. That sentence is the explicit intent of the devs.

Amnesiac wrote:tl;dr lets display melee and spell damage output, too

oh good someone brought up the fact that exact damage isn't displayed and everyone can play just fine, thus proving that exact attack delay doesn't need to be displayed either

Volteccer_Jack wrote:
MoogleDan wrote:mask the underlying math with weird, "easy" answers.

You must be new here. That sentence is the explicit intent of the devs.

Except in this case the intent is totally misplaced. Think of how many CiP posts where someone asks for skill advice and the answer is "Weapons until mindelay", as compared to those where the answer is "Spells until max power".

"your attack speed is average"
oh look my weapon skill is fine

"weapons until mindelay" is an oversimplification for newbs who don't know how to make their own decisions you could easily say "weapons until 15" and achieve the same effect your primary kill button skill should always be the focus of your skill-training

Code:: [18:24] <Henzell> skills[1/1]: Here is how you train skills. First you train the skills that you use to kill dudes. Once you are killing dudes well enough, then you train the skills you use to not die to dudes. If you later run into problems killing dudes, you switch back to killdudes skills.

Except in this case the intent is totally misplaced.

i didn't say i like the devs i just said what they are doing

But you can't infer if your weapon skill is "fine" just from the @ screen, because you reach mindelay at different points in the @ screen. An executioner axe at "fast" is a good thing since you can't get it any faster, but a quickblade at "fast" is pretty shitty, since you can get it much faster.

How about just having the weapon's % decrease on their item page as you gain skills in whatever correct category, then glow gold when they hit minimum attack delay?

Klown wrote:How about just having the weapon's % decrease on their item page as you gain skills in whatever correct category, then glow gold when they hit minimum attack delay?

Or you could have a nifty unobtrusive message like "Barring divine or magical aid, you cannot swing this weapon faster.". There's really lots of options.

Volteccer_Jack wrote: your primary kill button skill should always be the focus of your skill-training

you are more likely to survive if you train your weapon to mindelay and then switch to defence, than if you just train your weapon until it can be trained... Until you hit the mindelay you gain several times more damage per turn, because you hit a bit stronger but much faster every 2 levels, then you just gain 2% damage, which is not significant, while a few points in AC and EV is significant or if you train magic, some buffs will likely increase you survivability even more.

Volteccer_Jack wrote:"your attack speed is average"
oh look my weapon skill is fine

No it's not.

Anyway, this is really in the same boat as spell casting success. The old system "worked" and everyone could play the game "just fine." But that didn't stop that system from being extremely confusing to new players. After all, I'm sure we all heard "What do you mean 'Good' isn't a good success rate?"

Weapon delay is just like that. Except worse because on the item's information you have a percentage value and have no idea what it's 120% of. And then when you hit @ you get indicators like "slow, average, very fast" etc with no way to tell if "fast" is as fast as you can go with 120% nor if fast means "fast for 120%" or "fast in general". Not to mention, "average" doesn't sound bad, but for most, if not all weapons, it's below the maximum speed you can obtain and is therefore undesirable to remain at if you're training your weapons at all. Kind of like how "good" for spellcasting success was undesirable to remain at.

Really, just use something more transparent like spell-success values. And make the @ information and item description actually correlate with each other. Yes, we all know how it works and and can play the game just fine as is, but that's no excuse for leaving things as the confusing mess as they are now for newer players.

How about rename "aut" to "turn" and throw away whatever aut (now turn) * 10 is?

VJ has been displaying an unduly aggressive attitude lately and has now been formally warned for this post. Please do not hesitate to push the report button if he acts up again. - The Management

Spoiler: show

Volteccer_Jack wrote:am i the only person in the world who knows what a fucking turn is and is capable of making basic inferences

Well, the show_game_turn option in rc/init files shows how many times you have pressed the keyboard in a game such as to make the computer's actors also act. That is, "turns" as the game defines them are unrelated to how much "time" the action takes. So no, actually, you don't know what a turn is.

Arrhythmia wrote:Well, the show_game_turn option in rc/init files shows how many times you have pressed the keyboard in a game such as to make the computer's actors also act. That is, "turns" as the game defines them are unrelated to how much "time" the action takes.

What are you even talking about?

Start a game right now. Eat a bread ration as your first move. Now the turn counter says 4. If it says anything else, file a bug report.

http://crawl.akrasiac.org/scoring/faste ... turns.html
^^this is how the game defines turns fyi

Volteccer_Jack wrote:yes it is because the real reason slow attack speed is bad is that monsters get more hits on you and and average attack speed eliminates this problem

Which is the exact reason why "fast" is better than "average" (and, off the top of my head, I can't think of any weapon that caps at "average"). If you're relying on a weapon for damage, you want minimum delay. No exceptions. To train to anything less is like training any given Conjuration spell to only a 30% failure rate and then trying to rely on it without farther training.

Also, the fact that you think "average" is fine just proves that the current system of indicating to the player what their current attack speed is flawed. This is no different than someone thinking that a success rate of "good" was fine back in the days before percentile failure rates on spells.

I would love to not have to do math (even simple math) to figure out if I'm at min-delay or not.

TwilightPhoenix wrote:If you're relying on a weapon for damage, you want minimum delay. No exceptions.

oh i found a d2 exec axe time to train axes only for the first half of the game after all NOTHING increases survivability more than mindelay

Also, the fact that you think "average" is fine just proves that the current system of indicating to the player what their current attack speed is flawed.

The current system doesn't work, therefore the fact that I think the current system works proves the current system doesn't work? That's called a circular argument, my good chum.

This is no different than someone thinking that a success rate of "good" was fine back in the days before percentile failure rates on spells.

yes that's a totally fair comparison that definitely doesn't ignore the basic mechanical differences between these things

after all doing completely nothing for 3 consecutive turns while also spending 10+ mp (when a single successful cast often has potential to instantly end the threat) is "no different than" performing an action at a slightly faster speed

bobross419 wrote:I would love to not have to do math (even simple math) to figure out if I'm at min-delay or not.

Press @. Min-delay will either be at "quite fast" (for most weapons), or "very fast" (for whips and short blades). No math necessary.

Alternately, count your hands. If it is one-handed, 15 skill is plenty.

One of the problems that the coarse descriptive scales have, which admittedly attack speed is better about than others, is that it's open to personal interpretation. Like, is "extremely" better than "incredibly"? Where does "extraordinarily" fit in w/r/t them? While implausible, it's still very possible that someone could mistakenly think "quite fast" is better than "very fast". Another problem is that, at the higher end, it gives no clue as to how much more skill you need to reach the next tier. "Below average" encompasses 1.2 and 1.1 aut/swing, "quite slow" is 1.5 through 1.3.

Volteccer_Jack wrote:
bobross419 wrote:I would love to not have to do math (even simple math) to figure out if I'm at min-delay or not.

Press @. Min-delay will either be at "quite fast" (for most weapons), or "very fast" (for whips and short blades). No math necessary.

Alternately, count your hands. If it is one-handed, 15 skill is plenty.

Code:: Which skill (by name)? polearm Polearms To what level? 12 Lowered Polearms to skill level 12.0. You are alive. You have 4 tentacles available for constriction. Your movement speed is average. Your attack speed is quite fast (70). You are not resistant to hostile enchantments. You feel fairly stealthy. Enter Wizard Command (? - help): Which skill (by name)? polearm Polearms To what level? 14 Increased Polearms to skill level 14.0. You are alive. You have 4 tentacles available for constriction. Your movement speed is average. Your attack speed is quite fast (60).

I think we misunderstood each other, VJ. You said that you weapon skill should be the focus of your training, then I said that you better train it to midelay, and then training is usually better spent on other skills, I didn't mean that you need to train only weapon skill until mindelay. However, in first half of 3-rune game if may actually work if you train only weapon skill if you find an exec axe, if you just wear a plate armour. You better worship okawaru or ashenzari, though, so you wouldn't actually need to train in to 26... My ogre survived while training with GSC before switching to other skills and he didn't even have any armour. While it takes 4 more skill levels for an execaxe, normal sized species have the advantage of being able to wear most pieces of armour and body armour itself.

Btw, speaking about spellcasting, I wonder if other details of the game will become as clear in the course of development. I remember that it didn't take long to realise that "good" is actually "not so good" and "great" is "good", though

"At your current skill it will take 0.7 turns to swing"
Do you realize that this information is available already for your wielded weapon? It's the number in parentheses next to turncount, showing how long your last action took. For example, after you move one square as a Felid, this will show 0.8. Attacking as an unarmed-combat character with maxed UC skill will show 0.5. Attacking using a dagger as a character with no SBl skill will show 1.0.
This information you propose would mainly be relevant to weapon comparison.

IMO this 'last action took X turns' indicator is quite satisfactory.
What is less satisfactory is the privileging of math skills for getting mindelay. I'd like to have a simple indicator of whether mindelay with the weapon you are wielding has been attained. "Your swiftness with this weapon is presently limited by your lack of skill."

@bobross, that is a useful guideline, but those 'quite fast' covers a range of values. I like to be 'quite fast', but what I really want to know is not -how fast I am-, but whether I -could be faster-. Because being faster is strictly better, even if only by 0.1 turns, and I don't want to overtrain my weapons skill as I wonder whether I am only approaching mindelay or have actually reached it; both of those states could be represented by 'quite fast'.

@ VJ: That's a specious objection. You don't use the exec axe that early *because* having mindelay is more important (== reliable damage output) than having a big stick; you only switch to exec axe when you have enough skill to support both the high base damage and a quick attack rate.

Volteccer_Jack wrote:http://crawl.akrasiac.org/scoring/fastest-wins-turns.html
^^this is how the game defines turns fyi

Those are not 10 aut. Score uses action count, which you can see by pressing E (or display instead of the time display that has been the default instead of the turn counter for a few versions).

savageorange wrote:"At your current skill it will take 0.7 turns to swing"
Do you realize that this information is available already for your wielded weapon? It's the number in parentheses next to turncount, showing how long your last action took. For example, after you move one square as a Felid, this will show 0.8. Attacking as an unarmed-combat character with maxed UC skill will show 0.5. Attacking using a dagger as a character with no SBl skill will show 1.0.
This information you propose would mainly be relevant to weapon comparison.

Sure, but if you're going to say compare the delay of 3 different weapons, you'll have to wield 3 different times and whack at enemies at least 3 times. To save tedium, it makes sense to also put this info in the description of each weapon, along with whether or not min delay is reached.

As things currently stand, the optimum way for me to do a weapon comparison is to refer to a page like this: http://crawl.chaosforge.org/index.php?t ... apon_Speed . I don't know whether this is considered a good thing or not.

savageorange wrote:What is less satisfactory is the privileging of math skills for getting mindelay. I'd like to have a simple indicator of whether mindelay with the weapon you are wielding has been attained. "Your swiftness with this weapon is presently limited by your lack of skill."

That's a really good idea.

Does anyone remember when weapons and armour did not have their maximum enchantment displayed in the description? This seems pretty similar.

Volteccer_Jack wrote:Press @. Min-delay will either be at "quite fast" (for most weapons), or "very fast" (for whips and short blades).

Slightly off topic but there doesn't seem to be any way of displaying if your armour or shield are penalising your fighting or spell casting, it really should be viewable when pressing @.

1010011010 wrote:
Volteccer_Jack wrote:Press @. Min-delay will either be at "quite fast" (for most weapons), or "very fast" (for whips and short blades).

Slightly off topic but there doesn't seem to be any way of displaying if your armour or shield are penalising your fighting or spell casting, it really should be viewable when pressing @.

That. it always bugs me that i have to spend a lot of time getting in and out of armor to check if I would cast some spells significantly better with lousier protection.

Also, i wonder if there is actually any real crawl player that does not have somehow access to the information about min delay, malus to spellcasting, and other things, and does not want to have it? Because as I see it, the main argument of people who do not want that information displayed is "you can guess it already / you should know it" not "I enjoy not being able to know whet the best choice for skill training or gear selection is". Because if having that information displayed isn't detrimental to your playstyle, then why are you opposing it?

How would you quantify spellcasting and combat penalties?

But you can already tell how much your shield screws up your casting because you wear it and your failure rates go up.

If you have enough skill, your failure rate doesn't go up. Looking at the shield should tell you "Becoming more skilled with this shield can help you cast spells and dodge attacks better" or "Becoming more skilled with this shield will not help you cast spells and dodge attacks."

It is possible to go to a no-risk area and take time to change your equipment, and this helps you figure out what the best equipment is. This is trading real world time for an in-game advantage without giving up anything in the game.

Really, the thing this thread makes me think is "mindelay is a disproportionately important psychological thing" and that maybe it should not be a thing for that reason alone. It encourages people to think about skill training in a way that I think is unintended.

jejorda2 wrote:If you have enough skill, your failure rate doesn't go up. Looking at the shield should tell you "Becoming more skilled with this shield can help you cast spells and dodge attacks better" or "Becoming more skilled with this shield will not help you cast spells and dodge attacks."

For the casting spells part, its not as straightforward, since it also depends on your body armour. I guess you could have something like "Becoming more skilled with this shield will not help you cast better in this armour, but may in heavier armours" or something but that starts to seem like too much hassle to implement (from the outside looking in) and clearly convey.

njvack wrote:Really, the thing this thread makes me think is "mindelay is a disproportionately important psychological thing" and that maybe it should not be a thing for that reason alone. It encourages people to think about skill training in a way that I think is unintended.

This isn't GDR though, mindelay actually is important. Also you're actually getting a bigger boost the closer you get to it, so if you're relying on a weapon as your primary means of killing things you typically don't want to stop just short of the limit.

battaile wrote:
jejorda2 wrote:If you have enough skill, your failure rate doesn't go up. Looking at the shield should tell you "Becoming more skilled with this shield can help you cast spells and dodge attacks better" or "Becoming more skilled with this shield will not help you cast spells and dodge attacks."

For the casting spells part, its not as straightforward, since it also depends on your body armour. I guess you could have something like "Becoming more skilled with this shield will not help you cast better in this armour, but may in heavier armours" or something but that starts to seem like too much hassle to implement (from the outside looking in) and clearly convey.

Isn't that only true for robes and steam dragon armor? Or untrue, depending on the way you look at it. It wouldn't be too weird to just say the shield is still hurting you when it isn't because it's multiplying 0 by something instead of a larger number. Doesn't the shield penalty completely go away at the same shields skill level, regardless of armour? It's just that it becomes insignificant at a different point depending on armour/armour skill/strength/intelligence/magic skills. Or maybe I don't understand shields as well as I think.

jejorda2 wrote:If you have enough skill, your failure rate doesn't go up. Looking at the shield should tell you "Becoming more skilled with this shield can help you cast spells and dodge attacks better" or "Becoming more skilled with this shield will not help you cast spells and dodge attacks."

What I actually meant is there's no need to add more data when the player has access to the relevant one. Spellcasting failure rates tell you about how shields affect magic, your EV score tells you about how shields affect EV.
I don't think it's too much to assume people will understand getting more skill with shields will make you be better with shields and thus screw with your spellcasting and EV less, then if they care enough they can look up the magic numbers on their own. This is fundamentally better than just saying "you need x levels on y skill to remove penalties on z" because that sort of statement not only has to account for the wearer's current armor and adapt to their size, but makes it look very important and will mislead people into rushing to remove the penalty instead of training skills sensibly.
This is also the logic behind the current weapon speed display too, the problem is mindelay is actually pretty good to have.

"This is a WEAPON NAME yadda yadda BORING DATA REGARDING ACCURACY AND DAMAGE AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE DESCRIPTION. You need EXPLICITLY STATED MAGICAL NUMBER in RELEVANT WEAPON SKILL to achieve proficiency with this weapon."

there I fixed the ~*~magic numbers~*~ issue without getting rid of the (really, really good) base speed/required investment/damage potential mechanics associated with mindelay in its current form

Volteccer_Jack wrote: oh i found a d2 exec axe time to train axes only for the first half of the game after all NOTHING increases survivability more than mindelay

Actually, you should grab the first hand axe you see, if you don't already have one, and then start progressively upgrading your weapon until you can use that executioner's axe at a reasonable attack speed. Also, depending on species, getting Axes to 18ish by Lair or some point in it is perfectly feasible. Also also, I didn't say training nothing but Axes. Sure, you can do that and it works, but you should at least focus your weapon training until it's at the skill level you need. Also also also, killing things faster is safer than being able to evade their attacks slightly better. Because if they're dead they kind of can't throw more attacks at you.

The current system doesn't work, therefore the fact that I think the current system works proves the current system doesn't work? That's called a circular argument, my good chum.

No, not really. Your argument is virtually identical to those who were opposed to percentile spell-success rates we have now. They thought it was fine and being told your success rate was "good" or "very good" was fine because that's what it was. When, in reality, it was misleading because you wanted everything at no less than "excellent" if you could help it. "Good" had like... a 30% miscast chance or something? That's not good at all.

As for attack speed, it's the same. Especially considering any given "descriptive" value covers more than just one attack speed. Like Bobross pointed out, "Quite Fast" covers both a .7 Aum attack speed and a .6 Aum attack speed. How do you know if you're at your peak just off of the value of "Quite Fast"? And of course the weapon information doesn't help because it's just throwing 120% at you without telling you what it's 120% of. Combine the two and the fact that each weapon hits minimum delay at different values and it becomes extremely difficult, or at least pointlessly annoying and confusing, to figure out what the optimal attack speed is for any particular weapon.

Crawl's goal isn't to give all the numbers to the player, but it shouldn't provide information in an unclear and confusing manner. That's why spell success rates were changed to percentages and now change colors at different points depending on the spell level and the potential miscast severity.

Now as for handling giving players proper attack speed indications without having to do math or start swinging at the air, there's a simple solution. Color code the attack speed descriptor in @. If the player is attacking particularly slow with a weapon, color it in red. If they have a decent attack speed, go to yellow. If they have a good speed, color it in green. If they've hit min delay, color it in blue. The same could be done for the other information given there, such as magic resistance and stealth. (Is extrodinarily stealthy better or worse than uncanningly stealthy?) Then we should change the values in the weapon descriptions to something better. At the very least get rid of the non-specific percentages and change it to something like "base delay 1.2 AUT". Giving potential minimum delays would be ideal as well. Maybe current delays, but I get the feeling having to check an item to get your current attack speed feels off.

@ VJ: That's a specious objection. You don't use the exec axe that early *because* having mindelay is more important

It's called an example. What is special about hand axe mindelay? Why not train until exec axe mindelay if "doing more damage" is the most important thing? What if my hand axe gets corroded, and I find an exec axe of speed? What if I find a good war axe or broad axe? Do i train "nothing but axes" until they hit mindelay? What about a ring of invisibility? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It's the same as using magic:
1--Raise your main killdudes skill until you killdudes effectively
2--Raise other stuff
Obsessing over mindelay is pointless and silly.

The difference between a 12 skill trident and a 14 skill trident (just to prove to bobross that his example is silly) is like an average of a point or two of damage. Do you seriously think that's SOOOOOOOOOO important that you cannot possibly risk being a level or two lower? And if it is that important, do you seriously think being a level or two higher is a big deal?

Additionally, knowing the exact speed of your attacks is only actually useful if you know the speed of everything else, including monsters, and in that case you're already staring intently at the in-game indicator, so you don't need a display elsewhere.

If this thread is seriously how people think about mindelay, I'm not surprised some people want to get rid of it.

getting Axes to 18ish by Lair

Unless you are an orc or minotaur, 18 axes at the start of Lair is a mistake. If you are an orc or minotaur, it is probably still a mistake, but in that case you are an easy mode race and you are wearing plate armour, so skill training is dramatically less important.

the main argument of people who do not want that information displayed is "you can guess it already / you should know it" not "I enjoy not being able to know whet the best choice for skill training or gear selection is". Because if having that information displayed isn't detrimental to your playstyle, then why are you opposing it?

My objection is that that information IS detrimental. Anything which distracts the player from more important concerns is detrimental. If you're worrying about whether your current delay is 0.75 or 0.70, then you're not worrying about what will happen when a spiny frog appears around that corner or any other of the hundreds of other things more likely to kill you than being slightly off mindelay.

If you force those numbers into my view, and I know they aren't important, then I have to expend effort to ignore them, which is bad for the same reason.

As for attack speed, it's the same.

no it's fucking not did you even read my last post

miscasting is hugely, oceanically different from a slight action speed difference. On top of that, "slow, average, fast" are reasonable, useful, descriptive words. Whereas the word "good" is meaningless garbage. Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad for making it.

Crawl's goal isn't to give all the numbers to the player, but it shouldn't provide information in an unclear and confusing manner.

pretty sure crawl's goal is to provide information in an unclear and confusing manner

Actually it is rather similar to the Yu-Gi-Oh! card game. Ridiculously convoluted and impractical ruleset that is a direct result of years and years of random tweaks and changes without apparent concern for the massive cluster**** being created. But actually pretty simple and intuitive once you learn to read between the nonsense.

Volteccer_Jack wrote:The difference between a 12 skill trident and a 14 skill trident (just to prove to bobross that his example is silly) is like an average of a point or two of damage. Do you seriously think that's SOOOOOOOOOO important that you cannot possibly risk being a level or two lower? And if it is that important, do you seriously think being a level or two higher is a big deal?

It increases your damage by 16%, which is actually the same increase that the vorpal brand would give.

Arrhythmia wrote:Except in this case the intent is totally misplaced. Think of how many CiP posts where someone asks for skill advice and the answer is "Weapons until mindelay", as compared to those where the answer is "Spells until max power".

That is almost always bad advice that when followed makes the new player's game harder and character worse than if they had just been left alone in auto mode. Minimum delay is a popular phenomenon because it is an intermediary goal that is more or less easy to understand in a game in which it can be unclear what to do next. (That open-endedness is in my opinion a great thing about crawl that gives it replay value and challenges the player to think more). Generally, players give minimum attack delay way too much weight - attack delay is one aspect of a character; they should look at all the aspects (or none of them).

Whether examination of a mace displays 140% or 1.4 turns or whatever I don't think matters that much, just thinking of myself as a new player. More complex changes to the display I am not sure I like because I don't think the information really accomplishes a lot besides making people think about delay even more.

The Tavern

Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in game

Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in game

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in

Re: Proposal: Give real numbers for weapon attack speed in